Olsen v. Moran

| N.Y. App. Term. | May 15, 1906

Clinch, J.

The plaintiff seeks to recover on an express employment and on a written agreement to pay. The action was for a broker’s commission on a sale of real estate. The defendant states in his moving affidavit that he had employed one Miller to make the sale; that a demand has been made against him for the sum of $550, and that the claim and demand made by the said Miller “ is the same claim anti demand made by the plaintiff.” In this latter statement he is clearly wrong. Each claim is based upon a distinct contract alleged to have been made between the claimant and the defendant.

This is not a proper case for an interpleader. McCreery v. Inge, 49 A.D. 133" court="N.Y. App. Div." date_filed="1900-07-01" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/mccreery-v-inge-5187433?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="5187433">49 App. Div. 133; Cohen v. Cohen, 35 Misc. 206" court="None" date_filed="1901-05-15" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/cohen-v-cohen-6150203?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6150203">35 Misc. Rep. 206.

The order should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Gildebsleeve and Davis, JJ., concur.

Order affirmed, with costs and disbursements.